NYT: Editors at Time Inc. Offer Reassurances to Reporters

[DeepModem Mom]

Editors at Time Inc. Offer Reassurances to Reporters
By LORNE MANLY
Published: July 13, 2005


It was meant to be a balm for upset journalists, or at least a start.

On Monday, the top editors of Time Inc. shuttled between New York and Washington to address the discontent simmering among Time magazine's staff members in both cities, the result of the company's decision to provide a reporter's notes and documents to a special prosecutor investigating the disclosure of a covert C.I.A. operative's identity.

But, according to journalists who sat on either side of the table, success is a long way off.

At a Monday lunch meeting, Norman Pearlstine, Time Inc.'s editor in chief, along with his deputy, John Huey, and Jim Kelly, Time's managing editor, met with about 18 of the magazine's Washington correspondents, who were encouraged not to hold back in their comments or questions. According to participants, they complied....

***

Some Time journalists have expressed concern that the company's decision could have a chilling effect on their relations with sources and could hinder their newsgathering efforts....


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/national/13time.html

[krkaufman]

1. Maybe the only solution is an end to Time

Writers, one way of demonstrating your beliefs to sources would be to boycott Time mag. Leave the company and start a new mag or go free lance, and start a consumer boycott of Time, as well.

Time *should* be some pain for what they've done (even if it should result in a Rove frog-march).

[skids]

2. They are all probably in Rove's Rolodex.

I bet most of the concern is probably due to most of them having used Rove himself as a source at some point.

[iconoclastic cat]

3. Oh, f-ing PLEASE!

These whores are trying to pretend that they are under seige? They've been ethic-free for some time now. I have no pity whatsoever.

[drduffy]

5. that's for sure

no pity whatsoever.

[peacetalksforall]

4. I would rather read that they analyzed the situation and the staff

agreed that the Cooper situation was not a typical whistle blower situation.

In the typical situation there is a whistleblower, a wrongdoer, and the journalist is a third party who is not on the side of either, but who investigates it and writes it up or not.

In this situation, the journalist is involved in a discreditation or lie or obstruction.

In the Plame situation:

There is no whistleblower
There is a wrongdoer
And it looks like the journalists partnered with or were going to partner with the wrongdoer
. which involved a law
. which involved a war
. which involved a lie to start a war
. which involved the entire countries of the U.S. and Iraq and all the coalition countries.

Just how many people have died because a few pushed this war on the country of Iraq?

In its wide context, its narrow context, its ethical context - it was all wrong.

Why are journalists crying for themselves?

Forget about the President and VP and Republican Majority Leader sitting behind the President lying to the country in the State of the Union address - they are a lost cause. A very dangerous lost cause as human beings.